87 
unsound. Fortunately, in the progress of the human mind, Bacon appeared, 
and he wisely adopted the experimental view of proving all his conclusions 
by an appeal to facts, and on this point I somewhat differ from Dr. Irons. 
I do not think he has done full justice to the a posteriori mode of philoso- 
phising. If it were not for our investigation of facts as they exist, our 
natural science would "be in as backward a state as that of the ancient 
schools ; our knowledge of the solar system as dark as that which preceded 
Copernicus, when it was maintained that the earth was the centre of the solar 
system, and that the sun revolved round the earth. Now, Mr. Spencer, 
in connexion with these questions of fact, has undoubtedly achieved — 
what ? He has had the advantage of the collective knowledge of previous 
investigators. Has he made good use of it ? Unfortunately, he has not 
proceeded as far as he might have done. He has advanced beyond the theory 
of Democritus and fallen short of that of Anaxagoras, and says that there is 
a human mind in conne;xion with matter, and not independent of matter, 
making the ultimate notion of mind merely the pulsation of the nerves. 
This, of course, brings us back to the old theory that mind and matter 
are inherent one in the other. Still, while we wish to do full justice to 
this author, we must admit that he is deficient in logical accuracy. It is 
very certain that Mr. Herbert Spencer falls far short of the truth, and it is 
on this point that I think the author has. achieved a great deal in showing 
that the system of Mr. Herbert Spencer is illogical and inconclusive. It is 
now many years since I studied Dr. Carpenter’s “ Comparative Physiology,” 
and I cannot but think that our new philosopher has borrowed from that 
great authority, and drawn inferences from the borrowed facts which the late 
learned Kegistrar of the University of London would repudiate. Whether 
or not that be so, the system, if system it can be called, of development is 
fanciful, imaginative, and a speculation. It is inconsistent with the facts of 
chemistry, which show with irrefutable exactness that combinations of 
isometric equivalents of the same elements produce totally different inorganic 
results, the properties and power of the products being different. In other 
words, qualities of matter are fixed, and fixed independent of the atoms. 
Mr. Herbert Spencer is merely proceeding in the darkness in which he 
has lived, and has not yet arrived at that full light to which the careful 
consideration of the facts of the case should have led him. And here 
I think that there is great force in what Professor O’Dell has said, namely, 
that if we carefully consider the facts existing around us, we are bound to 
admit that there is a spiritual element in our nature. If we take the great 
novels and plays — the mighty works and dramas of men like Shakspeare — 
we must confess that the whole of our literature, ancient and modern, goes 
to prove that there is a spiritual element altogether independent of material- 
ism. We need only do what Mr. Herbert Spencer himself has done, appeal 
to our own consciousness, and we must at once admit this ; and here, again, 
we must remark another error in the Spencerian theory. He says that truth 
and error, or, to use his own words, mendacity and trustworthiness, would 
become identical unless we accepted the verdict of consciousness that they 
